AACR2, RDA and You: Your AACR2, RDA and You: Your ThoughtsThoughts

Amigos RDA@Your Library Online Conference

Elaine SanchezAlkek Library, Cataloging & Metadata

ServicesTexas State University-San Marcos

February 4, 2011, 2-2:45pm

1

AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments

• Libraries Unlimited/ABC-Clio for use of tables and data from Conversations with Catalogers in the 21st Century (Santa Barbara, Calif. : Libraries Unlimited, c2011)

• SurveyMonkey for table graphics

2

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

• Demographics , Feelings, Knowledge, and Understanding of RDA

• Training , Funding, and Access Issues: RDA

• Cataloging Productivity and RDA, and, Opinions on AACR2 and RDA

• National Libraries, Testing and RDA

• FRBR, ILS, Cataloging on the Semantic Web

• Resources, Urls, and Contact Information

Background, Disclaimers, Background, Disclaimers, What YouWhat You can Docan Do

• Survey purpose and respondents: “You” and “Your”

• Top-level analysis only

• I’m a cataloger, not a survey-designer or statistician

• Analyze the results for yourself (link to survey data at the end of this presentation)

Demographics and

Feelings about RDA

5

Your position

Your organization

7

Words that most closely match your feelings toward RDA

8

Knowledge and Understanding of

RDA

9

Some Statements on RDA: Your level of agreement and/or understanding

Statement Agree or Strongly Agree, and Understand

No Opinion/Don’t Know and/or Don’t Understand

Disagree or Strongly Disagree, and Understand

RDA’s defined element set allows our bibliographic data to be more easily shared in many different formats other than only MARC

45.3% 36.1% 18.6%

The underlying FRBR model supports linking between entities, such as works and persons, allowing the description of relationships between them

69.6% 21.2% 9.2%

RDAs Vocabularies and Element sets have consistent and complete terminology to describe the relationships between FRBR and RDA elements., etc.

17.4% 59.0% 23.5%

FRBRized catalogs, using RDA rules linking all types of works, expressions, manifestations and items, is a necessary requirement for future online catalogs

37.1% 28.4% 34.5%

RDA’s take-what-you-see in transcription approach facilitates re-use of metadata from non-library entities and enables automated machine matching

32.9% 44.2% 23%

10

Some Statements on RDA: Your level of agreement and/or understanding (continued)

Statement Agree or Strongly Agree, and Understand

No Opinion/Don’t Know and/or Don’t Understand

Disagree or Strongly Disagree, and Understand

AACR2’s transcription rules and exceptions for corrections and abbreviations impedes automated data re-use and causes difficulties for non-library entities

38.1% 28.1% 33.7%

AACR2 is too bound to the limitations of the card environment

47.3% 12.4% 40.3%

RDA’s elimination of tracing only 3 added authors increases user access, improves machine-processing, provides better representation of the resource

73.6% 10.5% 15.9%

Latin abbreviations no longer transcend linguistic boundaries

38.1% 28.5% 33.4%

It is important to encourage publisher or distributor RDA use, and to begin to use their upstream bibliographic data so that some data doesn’t gave to be re-entered when cataloging, and it is less important to be overly concerned about the quality of the publisher or distributor-supplied data

30.6% 19.4% 50%

11

Training, Funding, and Access Issues:

RDA

12

Number of staff to train on RDA

Statement 1-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30 or more

Ranges of Staff Numbers

55.5% 19.1% 10.6% 4.2% 2.9% 2.5% 5.2%

13

Funding sources for training and RDA Toolkit

Funding Source RDA Training Funds

RDA Toolkit Funds

Unknown funding 33.1% 36.8%

No funding is available 29.9% 17.5%

Acquisitions budget -- 22.2%

Library general maintenance and operating

-- 24.8%

Library fees -- .4 %

Library travel or professional development funds

44.9% --

Other 11.4% 6.7%14

How will the cost of the RDA Toolkit affect its availability for staff? Categories of comments received

Category of Comment Percent of Respondents

Budget issues: Either we won’t subscribe to RDA, or are not sure at this time

30%

We will subscribe to RDA 22%

Access issues: We can’t provide enough user seats for all that need one 23%

Other comments 25%

15

Cataloging Productivity and

RDA

16

RDA implementation and cataloger productivity

Statement Agree or Strongly Agree

No Opinion/Don’t Know

Disagree or Strongly Disagree

RDA will slow cataloging production only for a limited time as catalogers learn the rules

65.9% 15.1% 18.9%

Cataloging workflows will require MINIMAL OR NO restructuring to implement RDA

18.3% 34.6% 47.1%

Increasing cataloging turnaround time (from receipt to patron) is NOT a service problem at my agency

37.7% 8.5% 53.8%

NO INCREASE in backlogs is expected due to RDA implementation (RDA learning curve WON’T increase backlog growth)

15.2% 30.0% 54.8%

I anticipate NO negative impact on cataloging productivity or turnaround time due to RDA

6.5% 17.6% 75.9%

17

Opinions on AACR2

and RDA

18

Statements regarding AACR2 and RDA: Your level of agreement

Statement Agree or Strongly Agree

No Opinion/Don’t Know

Disagree or Strongly Disagree

RDA is going to replace AACR2 47.2% 38.3% 14.5%

Changing to RDA from AACR2 is something all catalogers need to be ready to implement

57 % 22.3% 20.6%

AACR2 is still an excellent, easy to use, inexpensive set of rules with a viable updating LCRI mechanism, and remains a useful cataloging code

75.5% 7.1% 17.5%

AACR2 can handle the cataloging of digital resources as effectively as RDA

37.2% 39.5% 23.3%

19

Effectiveness of AACR2 and RDA in the cataloging of different formats: Your opinions

FORMAT AACR2 Effectiveness RDA Effectiveness

Print books 87.8% 20.1%

E-books 50.8% 43.7%

Print serials 76.7% 18.5%

E-serials 46.3% 45.6%

Integrating e-serials and e-databases

37.9% 50.9%

Streaming media 29.1% 55.5%

Remote resources 33.6% 53.9%

Websites 38.6% 57.4%

Media (CDs, DVDs, Kits, etc.) 66.8% 33.5%

Software (CD-ROM, digital disks, etc.)

57.3% 33.5%

Other 51.4% 22.4%

20

RDA rules that differ from AACR2, and selected workarounds: Your level of acceptanceStatement Would

Accept/Consider Accepting

No Opinion/Don’t Know

Won’t Accept

Accept RDA O.T./N.T. changes. Globally fix the O.T./N.T. differences to be implemented by RDA in your online catalog

57.9% 39% 3.1%

Map the new MARC fields 336 (content type) 337 (media type) 338 (carrier type) to a modified 245 $h [GMD]

53.3% 38.3% 8.4%

Don’t use or map the 336-338 fields and instead insert usual 245 $h[GMD]

32.5% 50.3% 17.2%

Use the new MARC 336-338 fields as is, once online catalog displays allow this

59.4% 37.3% 3.3%

Adjust to spelled out Department as per RDA (instead of Dept. as per AACR2 LC practice)

73.9% 15.4% 10.8%

Use or add spelled out words, instead of AACR2 abbreviations

76.4% 14.2% 9.4%

Use RDA rule of main entry for treaties under the first country to appear on source

57.6% 39.3% 3.1%

Follow the dissolution of the rule of 3 added entries and add as many as found

81.4% 11.8% 6.8%

21

Your opinion on this statement: A fully updated and maintained AACR2, with continuing LCRI service, should be maintained in addition to RDA for those libraries that choose not to utilize RDA cataloging rules.

22

If AACR2 were not maintained, would you support an AACR2 maintained by a cataloging community, with voluntary discussion and adoption of standards and changes?

23

AACR2 problems, limitations, and improvements needed to maintain its viability for future cataloging needs: Condensed comments

Category of CommentPercent of

Respondents

AACR2 is adequate for cataloging, should be adapted to accommodate new and digital

media as they evolve; keep using it; keep it updated to match RDA if this is what will work.

29

AACR2 is too based on card environment, for example: rule of three example, punctuation. 11

Dynamic, digital forms of communication cause problems for cataloging descriptions in

AACR2, such as digital resources, new formats, and more future forms.

7

In AACR2 there are too many options and exceptions, esoteric abbreviations, card-bound

rules, too much repetition.

7

Eliminate Festschriften in AACR2; get rid of GMDs and only use SMDs; add new fields for

material designators; get more explicit instructions on including data support FRBR

linkages; update the carrier-versus-content fields; adopt RDA’s expansion of rule of three,

update chapters 21–25 and FRBRize them.

7

AACR2 is conceptually outmoded and needs to be abandoned. 6

AACR2 is mostly print oriented, and books oriented. 3 24

AACR2 problems, limitations, and improvements needed to maintain its viability for future cataloging needs: Condensed comments (continued)

Category of CommentPercent of

Respondents

The problems with AACR2 are more to do with MARC; MARC needs enhancement. 3

FRBR is very worthwhile and AACR2 can’t make very good use of it, can’t describe

relationships of resources

3

AACR2’s rules provide a philosophical and methodological framework, which is

without question an excellent one.

2

AACR2 and RDA are both all right, similar, and need streamlining and changes. 2

Need a code that reflects the Web environment, computer-to-computer

communication, language, and structure, which AACR2 is not strong in.

2

AACR2 is too tied to the physical manifestation of the work being described and not to

the actual intellectual content of the work.

2

Various other comments from single respondents: AACR2 is not as easy to work with

for non-print media; RDA is not true change; AACR2 can’t handle new ILS systems;

Cataloging interfaces need improvement, not the codes; RDA doesn’t seem to go far

enough; and so on.

16

25

National Libraries, Testing, and

RDA

26

Is RDA acceptance a done deal, or will the U.S. National Libraries and test partner libraries confer to recommend the best choice?

27

If LC adopts RDA either in total or in part, what will your cataloging agency do?

28

FRBR and ILS

29

Your opinions on this statement: FRBR is a useful and up-to-date model of the bibliographic universe and relationships between its entities (authors, works, etc.), and is well suited to meet user information needs in the Web and digital environment

30

Is FRBR able to currently be implemented in our current ILS?

31

Cataloging on

the Semantic Web

32

Your knowledge of cataloging on the Semantic Web

1 – No Knowledge

2 3 4 5 – Expert Knowledge

56.3% 24% 14.2% 5% .4 %

33

Resources and UrlsResources and Urls• Original analysis (from Conversations with Catalogers in the

21st Century) in Texas State eCommons (IR):

http://ecommons.txstate.edu/libstaff/25/

• Spreadsheet data for original SurveyMonkey data, for your use and analysis, in Texas State eCommons: http://ecommons.txstate.edu/libstaff/25/ and then click on the

link just below “Additional Files” at the bottom of the page

• SurveyMonkey data for your use and analysis:http://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=lyKPc8gLqpITF_2fK8K127v7qTJG7nV8ODAEclJJOthnQ_3d

• Conversations with Catalogers in the 21st Century. Santa Barbara, Calif. : Libraries Unlimited, c2011. ISBN978-1-59884-702-4 34

Thank you!Thank you!• Questions?

• Contact informationElaine Sanchez

Head, Cataloging & Metadata ServicesAlkek LibraryTexas State University601 University Dr.San Marcos, TX 78666email: es02@txstate.edutelephone: 512-245-3005

35